[Breaking] "Agency Requests Investigation of Interviewers"... National Certification Exam Escalates into Legal Dispute

원본보기 아이콘

Suspicions have arisen that the pass rate for the National Professional Qualification Industrial Safety Consultant (Construction Safety) exam was manipulated, deepening the conflict between unsuccessful candidates and the Human Resources Development Service of Korea. Despite some claims that the agency itself was inadequate in managing the exam, it has instead requested an investigation to hold interviewers accountable, leading to a blame game rather than addressing the fundamental issues.

According to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea on November 20, the agency requested an investigation by the Ulsan Jungbu Police Station on October 31 regarding alleged violations of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea Act and other charges, in connection with the fairness controversy surrounding the 15th National Professional Qualification Industrial Safety Consultant (Construction Safety) exam recently administered.

The exam has been the subject of numerous controversies, including the "abstract scoring criteria for the third interview," "leakage of scoring sheets," and "manipulation of the pass rate through collusion with the association," resulting in a flood of complaints from unsuccessful candidates.

The main issue is that the agency's request for a police investigation was not aimed at restoring trust through a comprehensive investigation into the certification exam, but rather at pursuing the responsibility of certain interviewers. There are concerns that the resolution of suspicions and improvement of problems related to the exam are being neglected, with the situation escalating into a legal dispute over responsibility-shifting.

Recently, a blog believed to be operated by Interviewer A posted a comment suggesting that "a conservative approach to scoring was taken for this consultant interview, and adjustments to the number of successful candidates were considered." This comment, which was a private reply to an unsuccessful candidate, was captured and circulated, prompting some candidates to question the agency about the fairness of the third round of the Industrial Safety Consultant exam.

However, the agency determined that the individual presumed to be an interviewer violated confidentiality in the blog post and requested an investigation to identify the blog operator.

In contrast, A claims that the agency is shifting the blame for the harm suffered by candidates due to improper practices and unfair conduct in the interview process onto the interviewers.

A stated, "The post in question was simply an answer as an interviewer to a candidate who earnestly asked why they had failed; it did not contain any breach of confidentiality. The fundamental issues of vague evaluation criteria and suspicions of collusion with the association are being ignored, with the blame for the controversy being placed on the interviewers."

A also said, "Although the agency formally stated that the exam was based on absolute evaluation, most interviewers at the time understood it as a 'relative evaluation by group,' which is the agency's responsibility. Now, mentioning this is being treated as a crime of obstructing work. I believe the priority should be to prevent further harm to candidates caused by the agency's customary use of relative evaluation methods in interviews."

Regarding this, an agency official stated, "We are conducting an internal audit to verify the facts concerning the allegations of collusion with the association," and added, "We are fully cooperating to ensure the investigation proceeds normally."

Previously, the pass rate for the 15th National Professional Qualification Industrial Safety Consultant (Construction Safety) exam recently conducted by the agency was only 22.3%. This exam revealed the agency's inadequate management, such as the abstract scoring criteria for the third interview and the disclosure of scoring sheets to unsuccessful candidates. Additionally, a comment by an agency employee to some unsuccessful candidates, suggesting that "they may have been influenced by the association," sparked further controversy.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.